1

Owen Stone

Dr. Holt

Senior Capstone Project

23 March 2022

Owen Stone Capstone Proposal

Introduction

Topic: The metaphors for power across disciplines and their application to the world

This research topic lends itself to any discipline that studies human behaviors. This

includes philosophy, psychology, sociology, phenomenology, and history in the broadest sense.

More specifically, the topic explores the leading theories from any discipline or group within a

certain discipline to examine how it defines power. This project will focus mainly on the

structural definition a given group provides, such as how they divide groups up (if they do) and

what names they give to different aspects of their power structure. That definition, and the

context of how it is used within that group's field and the world as a whole make up a working

definition of a “power metaphor.”

Question: What power metaphors do different groups use to define the relationships between

people, and how can one contextualize themselves within these competing disciplines to find a

functional example of a power metaphor and apply it to a real world example?\

This question will be approached in three steps, each meant to tackle a different piece of

the question. First, I will conduct research into leading groups and disciplines to explore how

they define power. The focus of this section will primarily be into how they attempt to organize
 2

relationships between people, and more specifically what phrasing they use to explain their

categorization. Second, after sufficiently exploring leading theories of power, I will attempt to

insert myself into the conversation by defining my own structure of power in relation to existing

theories. This may mean simply subscribing to a given model for the duration of the project, or

modifying and critiquing one or more other theories to create my own, all while remaining

within the academic bounds I have already explored. Finally, I will text whatever theory I end up

with by using it to fully explain the complex set of relationships that exist in the world. This

could include historical power dynamics, political relationships, religious hierarchies, or another

example I will find in the course of my research.

Background

This research topic originated from studies in world history classes about the origin of

human hierarchy, especially in relation to food control after the agricultural revolution.

Originally, this topic was an attempt to explore the changes in human power hierarchies over

time with a historical lens. As I began to research however, I quickly realized the number of

different existing theories for power and how widely varied the language of those theories are. In

conjunction with conversations and prior readings into authors like Paulo Friere and A.O. Scott, I

began to adapt my question to exploring how the terminology used by these authors changes

their actual theories. Throughout this process, I also began to realize the multidisciplinary lens of

the question and began to wonder if a comparative lens would work better than a specific field of

studies lens of viewing power. For this proposal, I condensed that work into the question above,

making sure to combine what interests me with the existing body of research and without

limiting my ability to influence the dialogue through the project itself.

 3

Context

A major source of dialogue on the structures of power comes from progressive anti-racist

and femenist movements. Because of the nature of the struggles against systematic oppression,

questions almost necessarily arise about the nature of those systems and how they have gained

the power they hold, as well as how to change those systems. Separately, a lot of sociology and

applied psychology focuses on human relationships, so the field itself is rife with discussions

about how those relationships form and maintain themselves. It is important here to clarify that

even non-oppressive relationships (ones where there is no hierarchy) still can fall into definitions

and metaphors for power, because even under those theories there still is a balance of power, but

that balance is equal. Under this definition all human relationships have some element of power

between them. Considering the broad definition of power in use, as well as the multidisciplinary

nature of the field, this project will primarily focus on the language and structures of power

offered by different individuals, as opposed to their broader theses about the world and its

organization of power. This is where philosophical analysis becomes an important piece of my

research, as many philosophers or philosophy centered individuals in a given field analyze

human relationships through a specific structure or lens that is well suited to the type of analysis

I plan on doing throughout this project.

Annotated Bibliography

Emerson, Richard M. “Power-Dependence Relations.” American Sociological Review, vol. 27,

no. 1, [American Sociological Association, Sage Publications, Inc.], 1962, pp. 31–41,

https://doi.org/10.2307/2089716.
 4

Summary: This article takes the classic definitions of “power, authority,

legitimacy” and attempts to make that archaic framework more relevant and meaningful

by defining the interactions between actors. The principle of the article is that power is a

relationship, not a property. He calls his theory the “Power-Dependence Relation” and the

article discusses multiple types of relationships based on how strong the hierarchy is. The

other part of this article focuses on the balance of power in a given relationship, and he

argues the actions of either party revert to the equilibrium in a proper power-dependent

relationship.

Evaluation: This resource is most useful to me as a theory to add to my

comparative lens. I can analyze this version of a power relationship against more radical

theories that deconstruct the power narrative we know of all together, since this author

starts from an assumption that many radical authors reject: the notion of “power,

authority, legitimacy.” This article also introduced me to the foundational work on that

theory, Max Weber, who I should continue to examine in other sources and read some of

his own works.

Friedkin, Noah E. “A Formal Theory of Reflected Appraisals in the Evolution of Power.”

Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 56, no. 4, [Sage Publications, Inc., Johnson

Graduate School of Management, Cornell University], 2011, pp. 501–29,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41721951.

Summary: This author proposes a historical lens to view complicated power

structures that begins with a group of individuals who have no organized power. This

author argues that power is formed by a web of relationships among the members of the
 5

group called “Reflected Appraisals,” which seem to act as a social currency that can

allow one individual to become more powerful and popular as more group members like

and support them both directly and indirectly. Interestingly, this study also concludes that

power centralized itself towards one person over time, and uses an actual lab study and

simulation to back up its findings.

Evaluation: This source offers another comparative lens to analyze when choosing

how I will apply a framework to real life. More specifically, this source offers a more

“scientific” perspective and analysis on how power forms itself. One other use for this

source is in formulating the real world example that my project culminates in, as the

paper does attempt to use its theory in a similar way as I intend to with applying the lens

to past and present power structures.

Kaplan, David, and Charles A. Ziegler. “Clans, Hierarchies and Social Control: An

Anthropologist’s Commentary on Theory Z.” Human Organization, vol. 44, no. 1,

Society for Applied Anthropology, 1985, pp. 83–88,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/44125674.

Summary: This article discusses a business model called “Organizational

Theory,” which is an attempt to combine sociology with economics to explain how to

make workers more productive. This author expands that term beyond business into how

people form non-hierarchical relationships in otherwise hierarchical settings. This article

also explores something called “Theory Z,” which builds on earlier works of

Organizational Theory (sometimes called Theory X and Theory Y) to explain how to take

advantage of Organizational Theory to create a more productive company.

 6

Evaluation: This can allow for another lens to evaluate power from. This source

can fill the niche of business and economics, which is especially important to research as

it is one of the most common places for discussions of organized power. The paper also

lists a series of older pieces of work that it builds on which may be useful if I plan to look

at this business focused power metaphor from a historical lens.

G.S. “Issue Overview: Structures of Power and Inequality.” Social Justice, vol. 24, no. 1 (67),

Social Justice/Global Options, 1997, pp. 1–6, http://www.jstor.org/stable/29766988.

Summary: This article primarily acts as a historical research paper on how race

and gender have been exploited and treated unequally across history, and more

specifically in American history. The article goes backwards in time through race and

gender issues, jumping from scholarly article to article as stepping stones for the overall

historical analysis.

Evaluation: This source will be great for finding further research and literature on

power and inequality, but sadly does not offer a comprehensive framework or power

metaphor on its own. This also means that in phase two and three of my project this can

be a potent tool for analyzing real world historical examples if I chose to analyze those

issues, but might not be as useful in its own right at this stage. NOTE: Use this source to

fuel further research on power and inequality, especially on race and gender.

Coleman, James S. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal of

Sociology, vol. 94, University of Chicago Press, 1988, pp. S95–120,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780243.
 7

Summary: This article discusses “Social Capital” as a theory for human

hierarchies. The paper spends a lot of time on the example of high school dropouts,

which is less about power structures and more about applying social capital to show how

it works sociologically. The article also discusses different aspects of life and power

where Social Capital can be used to explain one's decisions.

Evaluation: I can use this source as an organizational structure for my paper, as it

has very similar goals. It takes a concept in sociology, modifies and defines it, then

provides in depth analysis of a real world example. The content itself is sometimes not as

useful because of its focus on sociology on an individual level instead of a relationship

level. I can also use this article as another lens to view power through, this time “Social

Capital,” and also explore the specific example the article provides.

Working Bibliography

Jones, Gareth R., and Jennifer M. George. “The Experience and Evolution of Trust: Implications

for Cooperation and Teamwork.” The Academy of Management Review, vol. 23, no. 3,

Academy of Management, 1998, pp. 531–46, https://doi.org/10.2307/259293.

Thorne, S. E. The Yale Law Journal, vol. 57, no. 4, The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc., 1948,

pp. 676–78, https://doi.org/10.2307/793128.

Ouchi, William G. “The Relationship Between Organizational Structure and Organizational

Control.” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 22, no. 1, [Sage Publications, Inc.,

Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University], 1977, pp. 95–113,

https://doi.org/10.2307/2391748.
 8

Meenaghan, Thomas M. “Clues to Community Power Structures.” Social Work, vol. 21, no. 2,

Oxford University Press, 1976, pp. 126–32, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23712939.

Bierstedt, Robert. “An Analysis of Social Power.” American Sociological Review, vol. 15, no. 6,

[American Sociological Association, Sage Publications, Inc.], 1950, pp. 730–38,

https://doi.org/10.2307/2086605.

Gill, Stephen R., and David Law. “Global Hegemony and the Structural Power of Capital.”

International Studies Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 4, [International Studies Association, Wiley],

1989, pp. 475–99, https://doi.org/10.2307/2600523.